Why an Atheist in the R&S Forum? (churches, worship, Christians)

[aries63]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

I totally agree. Have I sufficiently backed up what I've passed along as fact here?

If not, by all means let me know...

The map and article report on numbers and distribution, but don't get exactly to your point of "exposure" or "upbringing", and especially in the highly wired world of today, where people can get exposure to all kinds of religious beliefs regardless of where they live. Even back in my childhood, I was exposed to several different religions as I mentioned. My parents encouraged me to encounter different ones with an open mind.

Your original statement: "the fact that the less religious exposure at a young age, the less likely one will become religious" I don't think is supported by your link. Or did I miss it?

So I was merely wondering how much family influence plays a part, versus community or cultural influence. And also, if there is an absence of religion in the family of origin, does this also have the same kind of influence through exposure as religion does, or would a child exposed to atheism at home absorb influences from the surrounding religious landscape. There are also radically differing degrees of religious freedom around the world which add another layer to complicate the influence of family and community.

I view religion as similar to culture or language. All have a place at the world's table. We don't say that there is only one right language or one right culture, or else they are all wrong, and in the same way I don't say there is one right religion, nor do I conclude therefore that they are all wrong.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by aries63

So I was merely wondering how much family influence plays a part, versus community or cultural influence. And also, if there is an absence of religion in the family of origin, does this also have the same kind of influence through exposure as religion does, or would a child exposed to atheism at home absorb influences from the surrounding religious landscape. There are also radically differing degrees of religious freedom around the world which add another layer to complicate the influence of family and community.

My own experience as a child was that I assumed -- reasonably, I think, given that I was a child -- that the adults in my life (parents, extended family, teachers, preachers, etc) pretty much knew what they were talking about. And since I was a compliant and trusting sort of child I just went with these trusted sources of info about reality.

Sure I had other inputs -- school, friends, and later on, employment, news media, and eventually the proto-internet and actual internet (I was an early adopter since I was in software development). But it took me a long time to credit these other sources even though intellectually I knew I was just born into some random family / situation and there's no reason to assume they were correct about anything, much less most things. Or that simply caring about and loving me meant that they would be careful not to harm me even unintentionally.

Eventually I figured out that a synthesis of all the ideas about any one thing in human history was more likely to have considered all angles than my family's religious leanings. But at a primal level I trusted my family first and foremost and I think it's reasonable to assume that probably around 90% of people are like that. I say this because I know a handful of people -- single-digit percentages of people I've known well -- who had really good BS detectors and solid boundaries even as children, and could to some degree separate themselves from an uncritical assumption that their tribe was usually right about most things. One such person is my current wife. I've met individuals online like this who can truthfully say "things started smelling fishy to me by the time I was about 6 years old" (or even sooner!). I envy such people. It took me until my early 30s to start to reluctantly acknowledge that my assumed understanding of how reality worked was probably faulty. And a few more years to see that it was, in fact, FATALLY and UTTERLY flawed.

To the question of whether children raised by atheists have religious influences, sure they do. I've mentioned elsewhere that my stepdaughter was predisposed at first to religion, and explored it seriously before eventually abandoning it when she graduated from high school. Also while her mother was an unbeliever, she was soft-core about it and her biological father was your typical cultural Christian as were most of her peers in grade school up through high school. So one cannot help but have significant contact with religiosity, or at least that of the dominant one in your own environment.

[Sonof]

Originally Posted by aries63

I view religion as similar to culture or language. All have a place at the world's table. We don't say that there is only one right language or one right culture, or else they are all wrong, and in the same way I don't say there is one right religion, nor do I conclude therefore that they are all wrong.

What do you mean by "wrong" then in this context?

[aries63]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

In part because with a non-religious upbringing there isn't the "fear factor" instilled in kids at a young age. A factor that is psychologically not easy to shake even as we get older. It seems many people raised to "fear God" or hell or instilled with the concern about not making their way to heaven have a difficult time coming to think otherwise. I know it worked with me for a good long time during my childhood anyway...

And what about those folks who were not raised under threat of "fire and brimstone" in their religion? I can understand why you would reject a religion based on fear and the psychological damage that would cause.

Yet I can also imagine situations in which children would be afraid to oppose the will of non-religious parents, especially those who enjoy taunting and insulting religious people. I have lost friendships because of that kind of behavior. I can tolerate many things except intolerance, whether from religious people or atheists.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by aries63

And what about those folks who were not raised under threat of "fire and brimstone" in their religion? I can understand why you would reject a religion based on fear and the psychological damage that would cause.

Yet I can also imagine situations in which children would be afraid to oppose the will of non-religious parents, especially those who enjoy taunting and insulting religious people. I have lost friendships because of that kind of behavior. I can tolerate many things except intolerance, whether from religious people or atheists.

I suppose that happens but I have never done that, my wife hasn't, my (step)children don't -- and I don't know atheists in everyday life who do so.

I would not read too much into people's online personas. On an explicitly atheist site -- one of which I frequent -- people sometimes vent and get frustrations off their chest but I note for example that the most, shall we say, "direct" guy on that site with the most colorful adjectives also runs a dog rescue operation, so he's not just some angry atheist with zero empathy. In real life he is very respectful and keeps his private thoughts private. As he should. On a private site with an anonymous handle he can rant all he wants about his pet peeves (pedo-priests and fascists using religion as a justification, mainly) and he pulls no punches.

This happens in other realms, too. I used to have a friend (now deceased) who was a retired engineer (a veteran of the skunkworks project that produced the SR-71 Blackbird, among many other things) who knew where most of the skeletons were buried and corners cut by government contractors and manufacturers. Superficially to someone who didn't know him to actually be the sweetest and kindest person who would give you the shirt off his back, he probably could be judged as having anger issues and a foul mouth and general hatred of people, if you witnessed him holding forth about some of the more vexing aspects of his career. But as with all things -- these must be evaluated in context.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Northsouth

Atheism, for the 10,000th time, is not a religion. We worship nothing. No need to bow down to something that doesn't even exist. In case you missed it, there were a few posters who were demanding that atheists had no right to be in their precious R&S. I think you may have been one of them. I have never noticed any atheist proselytizing for or against anything, just stating the facts, ma'am. I mean Sir.

One second you are saying we're evangelizing, then the next you are saying we belong here. So what is your reason for proselytizing? Oh I see, you don't do that. I can't believe I'm having to do this but it is what it is, and what it is is that you obviously don't know what it means to evangelize. Here's your definition for future reference:

e·van·ge·lize
/əˈvanjəˌlīz/
convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.
"some small groups have been evangelized by Protestant missionaries"
Similar:
convert
proselytize
bring to God/Christ/Jesus
bring into the fold
redeem
save
make someone see the light
preach (to)
seek/make converts (among)
act as a missionary
crusade
campaign
win over
recruit
proselyte
preach the Christian gospel.
"the Church's mission to evangelize and declare the faith"

I guess atheists are now evangelizing for Christianity? And all along I thought it was the FSM.

And for the 10,001st time...yes, it is a Religion...as per my information and belief.
It has even been deemed a Religion for Constitutional purposes by United States Federal Courts.
But, since it is disputed...let's call it a opinion.

As far the definition of "Evangelize"...it is not limited to Christianity. See #3:

e·van·gel·ize (ĭ-vănjə-līz′)
v. e·van·gel·ized, e·van·gel·iz·ing, e·van·gel·iz·es

v.tr.

1. To preach the gospel to.

2. To convert to Christianity.

3. To promulgate or promote (a doctrine or idea, for example) enthusiastically.

And as you see...even in your listing...there are many other definitions/meanings.

Currently, the most prominent Atheist poster to the board, puts up many posts like this. So....:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/64527525-post9.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/64095316-post235.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/64476127-post841.html

https://www.city-data.com/forum/64477243-post17.html

THAT is what you call...Preachin' the Dogma of his Religion!
Which I have no problem with...everyone has their Theological Views, and no two are exactly alike.
Go Forth With That! Shout it from the rooftops...or Preach long sermons online daily for years.
You belong here...ya fit right in!
Or Pastafarianism & FSM worship. It's all good.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by aries63

I wonder how many atheists in this thread who were raised with religion and then rejected it, would have behaved had they been raised in secular households without religion. Would some have been attracted to religion by nature, in the absence of nurture? Is there a spiritual vacuum that a certain inquisitive nature abhors?

I was raised Greek Orthodox, but live in a secular household (although my wife practices parts of Buddhism for her Kung Fu training). But my two teenager daughters are neither spiritual nor religious.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

And for the 10,001st time...yes, it is a Religion...as per my information and belief.
It has even been deemed a Religion for Constitutional purposes by United States Federal Courts.

How can you not hear the bell when you are using your head as the clapper?

For Constitutional purposes and only in the United States.

Big clues with flashing neon lights that say 'I am a big clue', how DO they work?

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

How can you not hear the bell when you are using your head as the clapper?

For Constitutional purposes and only in the United States.

Big clues with flashing neon lights that say 'I am a big clue', how DO they work?

The problem is...you don't ever hear the bell, or see the lights...because you never have a clue.

The reason that U.S. Government officials have deemed it a Religion...is because it meets the highest standard of "As Per the Constitution".
It meets that highest standard, because it IS a Religion...and that validates it.
You have inserted "only"...you must have found that buried in the mud while you were looking for a clue.

That was a very poor & weak Atheist Religion sermon Harry...try to gain strength from NOGODAH and see if you can do better. I know you can...I have faith in you!

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by aries63

The map and article report on numbers and distribution, but don't get exactly to your point of "exposure" or "upbringing", and especially in the highly wired world of today, where people can get exposure to all kinds of religious beliefs regardless of where they live. Even back in my childhood, I was exposed to several different religions as I mentioned. My parents encouraged me to encounter different ones with an open mind.

Your original statement: "the fact that the less religious exposure at a young age, the less likely one will become religious" I don't think is supported by your link. Or did I miss it?

So I was merely wondering how much family influence plays a part, versus community or cultural influence. And also, if there is an absence of religion in the family of origin, does this also have the same kind of influence through exposure as religion does, or would a child exposed to atheism at home absorb influences from the surrounding religious landscape. There are also radically differing degrees of religious freedom around the world which add another layer to complicate the influence of family and community.

I view religion as similar to culture or language. All have a place at the world's table. We don't say that there is only one right language or one right culture, or else they are all wrong, and in the same way I don't say there is one right religion, nor do I conclude therefore that they are all wrong.

Interesting to note what to me is quite clear and obvious evidence regarding the influence of upbringing that you seem to have "missed," much like evidence people see that a god exists that I don't see, but let's see if I can't do a better job of "connecting these dots" for you the way they connect for me...

First of all I suggest a bit of caution about using personal experience and anecdotes when it comes to understanding statistics and demographics on a broader scale. The link and the facts with respect to how the major religions are prevalent in different parts of the country should cause one to logically conclude where one is born has a significant influence on the religion they are likely to follow. In other words, one's upbringing has a significant influence on what religion a person is most likely to adopt.

If you don't see this as a logical conclusion based on the facts presented in that link, how would you otherwise explain how it is that decade after decade the predominance of those religions in those different parts of the world continue to dominate in terms of numbers, majorities, the way they do?

If we can reasonably agree or conclude that these statistics clearly demonstrate the strong influence of upbringing as I think we should be able, then how can we not also conclude that in the same way, to be raised in a relatively non-religious household is more likely to have the same effect? That being to typically follow suit what one's upbringing inclines them to believe as they get older? Seems only logical to me.

Additionally, there are all the personal testaments posted in this forum all the time about how that same influence has played a part in the beliefs adopted by the people posting in this forum. Somewhere someone else just recently noted the lack of comments related to religions other than Christianity. Well again of course, because here in America Christianity tends to be the dominant religion most Americans are raised to know and follow. Again, not to rely too heavily on personal experience or anecdotes, but my children were also raised in what I would describe as an essentially non-religious household. No real religious influence. No surprise to me as a result that neither of my children follows any religion or considers themselves religious. By comparison, I know very religious families, and no surprise the children in those families are also strongly religious.

There are exceptions, but again this tends to be the rule. The fact. The truth.

Of course there are other influences, but the numbers, national and/or international demographics, continue to well demonstrate that despite all the other influences, the predominant religion in a country always tends to continue decade after decade regardless. Indonesians continue to be mostly Muslim by a large majority. Indians continue to be Hindu by a large majority, and Mexicans continue to be mostly Catholic.

Hard for me to understand how anyone can "miss" what all this tells us in no uncertain terms, but if this is what you are missing, again please tell me how?